My yacht is impounded

[tweitz]

As someone pointed out, the OP has gone silent. Perhaps he has an attorney or someone told him how incredibly stupid and dangerous it is to be posting about his case. If I were examining this case as a lawyer, one of the first questions I would ask is his relationship with the "mechanic." If the mechanic was also his brother, then it might make sense, otherwise I don't think so. I would look at insurance -- was there any; if so, did it cover transAtlantic crossings? What did he communicate to the insurance company and when? When did he buy the boat and how? Where was it normally kept? Did he sail the boat much, or was it a paper transaction for a nominal owner? Lots of questions. But the size of the drug haul sure makes it look like a major organized crime operation, and the OP will have a tough road to hoe to demonstrate he wasn't part of the conspiracy at least.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by tweitz

A tough road to hoe to demonstrate he wasn't part of the conspiracy at least.

<pedant mode>
You don't hoe "roads", you hoe "rows" as in fields of crops.
</pedant mode>

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by tweitz

.............and the OP will have a tough road to hoe to demonstrate he wasn't part of the conspiracy at least.

You make some good points, although there is one point that is complicated, and that is his demonstration of innocence. In the US and some other countries, the prosecutor must prove guilt. Having said that, it is an unfortunate fact that this concept has been dangerously skewed over the past few decades.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates this more clearly than that (in the U.S.) unconstitutional and evil statute that allows for civil asset forfeiture EVEN THEN THERE NO CONVICTIONS OR EVEN CHARGES.

The OP certainly does have a tough row to hoe. If he is innocent, then I wish him the best of luck.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

You make some good points, although there is one point that is complicated, and that is his demonstration of innocence. In the US and some other countries, the prosecutor must prove guilt. Having said that, it is an unfortunate fact that this concept has been dangerously skewed over the past few decades. ..........

Let me add - prosecutor must prove guilt using only admissible evidence.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Let me add - prosecutor must prove guilt using only admissible evidence.

In theory that is true, but there are other things the powers that be can do. For example, they can bankrupt an innocent person by grinding them down with trial after trial. The judge can deny evidence the defendant wishes to use, or deny certain defenses. Prosecutors can, and have on occasion, tainted the jury pool before jury selection has even started. The list goes on.

Equally bad, there are some laws and rules that are in effect that apply a presumption of guilt. Examples of this include civil asset forfeiture and the no fly list.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Let me add - prosecutor must prove guilt using only admissible evidence.

Which may be indirect/circumstantial.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by StuM

Which may be indirect/circumstantial.

Yep.

A QC once told me (over drinks, not professionally), the successful guys are the ones who can get their evidence admitted while at the same time preventing the other guy from getting his evidence into the courtroom.

[GordMay]

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Yep.

A QC once told me (over drinks, not professionally), the successful guys are the ones who can get their evidence admitted while at the same time preventing the other guy from getting his evidence into the courtroom.

I'll break it down even simpler than that.

Generally, the attorney who thinks he will win the evidentiary hearing, is doing everything he can to speed it up, get it set, and get it heard.

On the other hand,the attorney who thinks he is going to lose, is doing everything he can to delay that from happening, while hoping that the delay will make his case better (witnesses being unavailable, dying, evidence being lost), or obtaining a better settlement due to financial hardship of the other party caused by the delay.

And, that's where 90 per cent of the legal fight takes place, most of the time. Insurance attorneys, who know they are facing an expensive claim, refer to this delay as "Starving them out."

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

You make some good points, although there is one point that is complicated, and that is his demonstration of innocence. In the US and some other countries, the prosecutor must prove guilt.

It's only the final determination of guilty or not guilty by the court that is held to that standard. (court never speaks to innocence). And actually, they only need to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Getting him arrested, issuing a search warrant, requiring he hand over bank records, etc... is a much lower standard. Always has been.

The minimal amount shared so far is likely (and quite reasonably) enough to justify the prosecutor pursuing search warrants, bank records and collection of other information from the OP. Depending on what comes out of that, there may be enough to arrest him and/or implement extradition proceedings.

I don't know if S.Africa has an extradition treaty but if he ever expects to go back to the EU, he would be wise to consult a lawyer soon. Getting the boat back is the least of his concerns.

[davefromoregon]

Like many have said, the op needs get a real, experienced attorney.

The loss of the boat may constitute an expensive lesson in naïveté if he is lucky.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by davefromoregon

The loss of the boat may constitute an expensive lesson in naïveté if he is lucky.

I think the only naïveté here is on the part of anyone who believes the OP innocently "loaned" his boat to some rando "mechanic" so he could happily sail back and forth across the Atlantic.

[davefromoregon]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I think the only naïveté here is on the part of anyone who believes the OP innocently "loaned" his boat to some rando "mechanic" so he could happily sail back and forth across the Atlantic.

I’ll admit that my advice was predicated on his story being substantially true and complete. If not, well, the various authorities have a history of being understanding in these cases……

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

It's only the final determination of guilty or not guilty by the court that is held to that standard.

Getting him arrested, issuing a search warrant, requiring he hand over bank records, etc... is a much lower standard.

I agree with most of your comment (NB For those who have not read the original post, I have deleted most of the quote with the sections above). The exception is in the first statement, and even then it is not a total disagreement.

In many cases this is true, but not in all. There are exceptions where the presumption is guilty until proven innocent. I have already mention the evil and unconstitutional (in the U.S.) civil asset forfeitures. In this case, the government is legally allowed to steal your assets based upon a government agency's thought that you might be guilty, so therefore you have to prove your innocence. Even if you prove your innocence, you MIGHT get some of your assets back.

Another area where the government assumes your guilt is with regards to many tax laws. In Canada , you are assumed guilty unless the charge is tax evasion. For example, if you are accused of under reporting income, the CRA or Canada Revenue Agency will assume you are guilty and must prove your innocence. The CRA can impose outrageously hefty fines. This even includes cases of negligence that falls short of evasion. The U.S. does similar things and also assumes guilt in cases other than evasion. This link has a much more detailed description of this: https://www.pushormitchell.com/2019/...oven-innocent/

In the UK, citizens can be convicted for failing to unlock encrypted material even without proof that the material is illegal or contains evidence of illegal activity.

Having said all this, it will be a difficult path forward for the OP. Even if he is determined to be innocent or found not guilty in a court of law, he still will likely have a difficult time getting his vessel back, and any compensation for any damages.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I think the only naïveté here is on the part of anyone who believes the OP innocently "loaned" his boat to some rando "mechanic" so he could happily sail back and forth across the Atlantic.

You might be right, on the other hand...

I can think of three possibilities.
1. He is innocent and the story is as simple as the OP presented.
2. There is more to the story and this will determine his guilty/innocence and the degree of that guilt/innocence.
3. He is guilty and he is lying.

Of these, choice two seems most likely. I don't think anyone on this thread knows the OP and others involved, nor the situation, enough to say one way or another for sure.

I've loaned my car to friends, and even one of the boats on occasion. I have also known people who have been screwed by friends and were indeed innocent. Think of the person who had a friend in their car, and during a stop, the friend threw something under the seat so they wouldn't have it in their pocket. This happens more often than people think.

Given the dearth of facts, I think it is possible that the OP is innocent, but I also admit the very real possibility that he is not. I don't think we know enough to say one way or another. It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.